I don't presume. I prefer to use terms that are familiar with the
people on this list who might be reading the message. Introducing
unnecessary capitalised phrases distracts from the message.

Again, you presume. Capitalization might not work for you, but you are not
the equivalent of an entire mailing list audience. You are one individual
entitled to a personal opinion and preferences.

I hope you agree i have the freedom to express those opinions.

Anyway, translation:

What's the problem with having a variety of methods for using LINKs to
associate a "Non Information Resource" with an "Information Resource"
that
describes it (i.e., carries its structured representation)? Why place an
implementation detail at the front of the Linked Data narrative?

It's already at the front, and as I say in my post it's an impediment
to using Linked Data by mainstream developers.

I don't believe its already at the front. I can understand if there was some
quasi mandate that put it at the front. Again, you are jumping to
conclusions, then pivoting off the conclusions to make a point. IMHO: Net
effect, Linked Data concept murkiness and distraction. You are inadvertently
perpetuating a misconception.

Thank you for your opinion. I don't believe I am jumping to conclusions.

There is. I find it surprising that you're unaware of it because it's
in all the primary documents about publishing Linked Data.

Please provide a URL for the document that establishes this mandate. I know
of no such document. Of course I am aware of documents that offer
suggestions and best practice style guidelines.

This is an interesting distinction between the resource and a name.
Can you restate it in a new thread so we don't add noise to the 303
discussion

I don't really see what relevance this all has to the issue of 303
redirection though. We are all agreed that things are not usually
their own descriptions, we are discussing how that knowledge should be
conveyed using Linked Data.

Of course, my comments are irrelevant, off topic. If that works for you,
then good for you. You spent all this time debating an irrelevance.

That looks like a natural close to this particular part of the debate then.

FWIW - 303 is an implementation detail, RDF is an implementation detail, and
so is SPARQL. When you front line any conversation about the concept of
Linked Data with any of the aforementioned, you are only going to make the
core concept incomprehensible.